I suggest you go to the linked thread and peruse that attorney’s posts. He is there under the name GunLawyer001. Specifically:

We had a statute that clearly preempted local municipalities from enacting penal statutes against gun possession, and it arguably barred them from “policies” as well. Now it only bars the penal statute, like it did before, but there’s a signal that the statute will be held to be no bar against owner “policies”.

Yes I am aware of what he said. But he is so clearly wrong. Before, we had municipalities saying they could enact penal statutes against gun possession, despite it being preempted. Now they can no longer do that. And we have a POSSIBLE way they could still do that (which Philly prior to this already said they were doing). Its something that hasn’t been tested in court- the court only signaled that a municipality could ARGUE that point.

So we won by removing criminal sanctions, and maybe the worst they could do is a policy where they could ask us to leave otherwise its trespassing.

He has no idea what a victory is. He probably thought Heller and McDonald were losses.

Why should any municipality be “scared?” What do any of them have to lose? As I’ve frequently put it (from personal experience) if you prove in court they have passed and enforced a grossly unlawful or even unconstitutional ordinance, they don’t have to so much as smack their foreheads with the heels of their hands and saying “Silly Us!” And they can (and very likely will) pass another one tomorrow and enforce it at their pleasure.